Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page
Search the Web

Winning Overbreadth Motion for Steve Bloomer: Instant Winner

I faxed this to the prosecutor at 5 a.m. He took it to court at 8:30. Case dismissed at 9:30 a.m.

Update: Steve sued the city for taking his car. He sued in Federal court. In a note of weirdness, the federal court in Iowa now meets in Illinois so that the Iowa folks can remodel their precious court house without interference from those pesky citizens. The case number is 03 Civil 10,075. The federal complaint is on the web for you at: www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5874.html and www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5874.html and www.lawyerdude.8k.com/5874.pdf And www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/5874.pdf .

 

  The city is being defended by its traffic prosecutor, City Attorney Chris Jackson 563 328 3535. Fax 563 328 6767. I recommend that you give Chris Jackson a call or a fax and tell him that he should do the right thing in this case and make Steve762 a fair settlement offer immediately. Steve is at 563 323 4061.

  

This page looks better in pdf format which is here: 5571.pdf or www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5571.pdf

This page is www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5571.html

Related pages:

            Back to lawyerdude’s overbreadth page: www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5409.html

            This page is mentioned on m “How to Write a Motion” page: http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/6025.html

            See the remaining Steve762 motions: www.groups.yahoo.com/group/lawyerdude/files

General navigational links:

Lawyerdude’s most important page. His top 10 lists: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5459.html

Back to www.lawyerdude.8m.com Or my mirror site: www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com

Telephone Lawyerdude: 805 652 0334

Back to Lawyerdude's discussion group: www.groups.yahoo.com/group/lawyerdude

Email lawyerdude: dlawyerdude@hotmail.com

Back to lawyerdude's briefs: www.circuitlawyer.8m.com

Back to Lawyerdude's Contemporary Constitutional Issues:

                                                   http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5693.html

The Steve 762 program to fight traffic tickets: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5695.html

List of all pages uploaded by Lawyerdude in the past few months updated 27 June 03: http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5673.html

Lawyerdude's links page: www.lawyerdude.8m.com/links.html




Winning Overbreadth Motion for Steve Bloomer: Instant Winner

I faxed this to the prosecutor at 5 a.m. He took it to court at 8:30. Case dismissed at 9:30 a.m.

Steve Bloomer                                         Served by fax on prosecutor. He showed it to Judge. Steve watched. She dismissed.

1930 Hill Street, Davenport, Iowa 52803

563-323-4061

Steve762@juno.com

This brief is available in pdf format at www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5571.pdf

This brief is available in html format at www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5571.html

This page looks better in pdf format which is here: 5571.pdf or www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/5571.pdf


In the Municipal/ Police/ Administrative Inquisitorial Tribunal

416 West 4th Street, Davenport, Iowa 52801. 563 326 8647


Court clerk, city attorney, Chris Jackson, police officer Hegland, under false color of law dba “The People of Iowa,”

                                      Plaintiffs

v

Steve Bloomer, Sui Juris,

Defendant


Case numbers: # 07821 smcr 203, 225

Update: Federal Civil Rights case #03 Civil 10,075

Current Trial date: November 4 - Not acceptable.

Current Pre-trial: Oct 31, 2002 - Not acceptable.

Document #5571 Overbreadth Motion. Version 1.6

Notice of Defendant’s concurrent Demands:

I make no waivers. Any oral waivers are void. I expect duress.

Demand for effective assistance of counsel.

Demand for judge - not a commissioner.

Demand for court reporter.

Demand for prompt (within a week) transcript of every hearing, past, present, and future (as they become available)

Demand for jury trial. Demand for Discovery.

Demand for indictment by grand jury.

Demand for full panoply of criminal due process procedures and rights.

Demand for Proof that judge has taken an oath of office.

Demand for proposed jury instructions a month in advance of trial.

Notice of Concurrent Motions as follows:

            Motion #5565 to Suppress Evidence. 

            Discovery Motion #5566.

            Motion #5567 Demand for Re-arraignment.

            Demurrer #5568.

            Dombrowski Motion #5569.

            Quo Warranto Motion #5570.

            Overbreadth Motion #5571.

            Motion #5573 to Strike Unsworn statement of Hegland.

            Gerstein Motion #5572.

            Motion #5574 to Dismiss.

            Motion #5575 to Continue.

            Motion #5576 for TRO to return the car. It is exempt from levy!Supporting Declarations. Memorandum of Law.

Proof of Service by fax.


 

Date:    Tuesday, November 26, 2002.

Time:    10:30 a.m.

Court:   Board Room 


Notice of Motion(s)

            To Prosecutor Chris Jackson, all parties and counsel: Be advised: At the venue indicated in the caption above or at such other time as the court may designate, Steve Boomer will ask this court to declare Davenport code 9.04.050 to be overbroad and hence unconstitutional. The motion will be based on a brief to be submitted in time for a reply by the prosecutor prior to the hearing.

 

Table of Contents:

 

Summary of the Case

 

Overbreadth Motion.

 

Cases and other Authorities of Law cited herein:

Cases Cited herein:

Statutes, Regulations, City Ordinances cited herein:

Scholarly Treatises Cited herein:

Constitutions, Magna Charta, and Ancient sources of law cited herein:

 

Proposed Schedule of Motions and Hearings

 

Declaration of Douglas Palaschak regarding car ownership and exemptions.

 

Continued Statement of the Case

 

Declaration of Attorney Douglas Palaschak regarding traffic cases.

 

Memorandum of Law regarding Overbreadth as applied to lawyers and other humans.

 

Overbreadth applies to Actions as well as Speech. Thus seat belt laws are suspect.

 

Deprivation of any License Requires Prior Due Process; It is a property interest.

 

Criminal v Civil is an artificial distinction and an instrument of oppression

 

Proof of Service


Summary of the Case

            Steve’s Mom’s car was sold by the police and towing company because Steve exercised his right to remain silent. Police accused him of “harassing a police officer” by excessive silence.

            Update: Halloween. 31 Oct 2002. Against the will of the city attorney, Judge ___ dismissed all charges against Steve - except for the driving without a license charge which is set for March. We will argue #1 that Steve needs no license; #2 that it was taken without a hearing and hence is still valid; and #3 at a hearing the license would not be taken because Steve did nothing to deserve losing his license.

            Update 1 November. Steve says that he actually pleaded guilty to the drive license violation. Hmm. Also, he says that the prosecutor had an ex parte conference with the judge. Our theory now is that this is all more of the denial of rights just to get money. We will ask to withdraw the plea. We already asked in writing. They ignore our writing; whoops Steve says he did not file any of these papers. He did file the paper a month ago and that paper made all these demands also.

            This case arises from a pretextual traffic stop. Failure to wear a seat belt was the pretext. Driver Steve exercised his right to remain silent. Municipal Employee Hegland and another co-conspirator handcuffed Driver Steve for the offense of not wearing his seat belt. Then they hauled him to jail - without fastening Steve’s seat belt in the back of the car.

            Then Fred’s 66 towed away Driver’ Steve’s Mom’s car. Thereafter conspirators Davenport and Fred sold Driver Steve’s Mom’s car and kept the booty - all without any hearing - in violation of the constitution and Bell v Burson http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/Burson.html in particular.

Bell v Burson (1971) 29 L Ed 2nd 90, 402 US 535, 91 S Ct 1586. You can’t take any license or property without a hearing. Cited in 7 motor vehicle treatises including 2 ALR 5th , 86 ALR 3rd 1251, 60 ALR 3rd 361, 60 ALR 3rd 427, 35 ALR 2nd 101, 3 ALR 2nd 107, and 69 L Ed 2nd 1044.

Their action violates Iowa code 627.6- 9- b which exempts one car from levy. This car was Steve’s transportation to work in another state. Now Steve rides his bike to Illinois to work. This will be dangerous in the approaching winter months.

            The statute, Davenport 9.04.050 is overbroad because, as this case illustrates, one may indeed lawfully and constitutionally “prevent a city employee from performing his duty” if one does so merely by exercising one’s right to speak (which includes the right to remain silent). Thus the statute impermissibly reaches into protected speech areas. The Supreme Court says that we free people should not have to wonder if what we are saying is permitted - or, in this case, if we are permitted to refrain from answering. The ordinance is unconstitutional. This case must be dismissed.

9.04.050 in its totality: “Any person who wilfully prevents or attempts to prevent any public officer or employee from performing the officer’s or employee’s duty commits a simple misdemeanor.”

            Steve wants the perpetrators here, Davenport, Hegland, and Fred to replace his car. The city wants Steve to be punished even more for not wearing his seat belt. Facetiously, We are wondering if they want to add a 2nd offense of not wearing a seatbelt against Driver Steve for not wearing his seatbelt on the way to jail in the back of the police car. This prosecution is pathetic and Draconian.

________________________

Driver Steve Bloomer

Overbreadth Motion.

            We demand a finding that 9.04.050 is overbroad. An overbroad statute invites the abuse of discretion that happened here.

Cases and other Authorities of Law cited herein:

Cases Cited herein:

Argersinger v Hamlin (1972) 32 L Ed 2nd 407 US 25, 92 S Ct 2006. Cannot put a guy in jail if you don’t give him a right to a jury trial. Cited in 12 scholarly motor vehicle treatises including:48 ALR 4th 367, 71 ALR 3rd 562, 53 ALR 3rd 1002, 93 ALR 2nd 747, 26 ALR Fed 218, 103 L Ed 2nd 1000, 101 L Ed 2nd 1017, 98 L Ed 2nd 1074, 98 L Ed 2nd 1115, 65 L Ed 2nd 1219, 61 L Ed 2nd 1018, 18 L Ed 2nd 1420.
1

Baird v State Bar of Arizona (1970) 27 L Ed 2d 639, Superb Annotation @953 of 27 Lawyer's Edition 2nd. Subject: Overbreadth. Bar applicant refused to answer question in bar application regarding his past to age 16 regarding membership in organizations advocating overthrow of government. Note that Judge McMecarch or whomever in Mariposa county refused to take the loyalty oath part of the oath specifically quoted in the California constitution. 1

Bates v Arizona (1977) 53 L Ed 2d 810. Legal Clinic Advertised. Subject: Overbreadth and 1st amendment. The 6th most pertinent case here. 1

Bell v Burson (1971) 29 L Ed 2nd 90, 402 US 535, 91 S Ct 1586. You can’t take any license or property without a hearing. Cited in 7 motor vehicle treatises including 2 ALR 5th , 86 ALR 3rd 1251, 60 ALR 3rd 361, 60 ALR 3rd 427, 35 ALR 2nd 101, 3 ALR 2nd 107, and 69 L Ed 2nd 1044 1 2

Cohen v California (1971) 30 L Ed 2d 124. "Fuck the draft" written on the back of jacket in court hallway. Overbreadth was the basis of this decision. 1

Condon, Estate of (__1998) 65 Cal App 4th 1138, 76 Cal Rptr 2d 922. For years the bar would not permit unlicensed lawyers to be heard if they attempted to collect money for fees. These lawyers took the bar to task and won! 1

Craig v Boren (1976) 50 L Ed 2d 397, 429 US 190, 97 S Ct 451.Bartender enjoyed relaxed standing to vicariously assert the constitutional equal protection rights of his patron to drink in a state where the drinking age was 18 for women and 21 for men.
1

Doran v Salem Inn (1975) 45 L Ed 2d 648. Overbreadth. 3 stripper bars. Ballet Africanus. 1

Erznoznik v City of Jacksonville (1975 ) 45 L Ed 2nd125, 422 US 205. Overbreadth. Baby's butt argument. Subject of 5 scholarly treatises: 52 L Ed 2d 892; 45 Led 2nd 725, 43 L Ed 2nd 871, 41 L Ed 2nd 1257, 21 L Ed 2nd 976. 1

Ficker v Curran 950 F Supp 123, Affirmed at 119 F3d 1150.Attorney solicitation. Overbreadth regarding bar acts regulating attorneys. Attorney solicitation law was held unconstitutional. Used in Palaschak’s brief 3596 at page 10. 1

Griffin v Illinois http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/griffin.html 1 (1965) 100 L Ed 891, 351 US 12, 76 S Ct 585, 55 ALR 2nd 1055 holds that everybody is entitled to Due Process at every stage of the proceeding - and a free transcript, too. 2

Griswold v Connecticut (1965) 14 L Ed 2d 510, 381 US 479, 85 S Ct 1678. Relaxed standing. One of the top 10 cases in constitutional law. Doctor invoked the privacy rights of his patients to justify giving them birth control pills in violation of state law.
1

Hackin v Arizona (1967)19 L. Ed. 2d 347; 389 U.S. 143; 88 S. Ct. 325. Overbreadth case. There was no written majority opinion. Douglas's strong and cogent dissent shames the majority in this case 1

Hackin v Lockwood (1966) 361 F2d 499. District court held that Arizona's ABA requirement is constitutional. Bad decision.
1

Houston v Hill (1987) 96 L Ed 2d 390. Pick on somebody your own size. This is the closest case in similarity to Steve Bloomer’s case here 1

In Re Crow (1959) 3 L Ed 2d 1025-27. Annotation 3 L Ed 2d. This was the old law! Essentially overruled by Ming. Non criminal disbarment. Attorney disbarred in Ohio. U.S. Supreme Court issues OSC. He responded. Douglas dissents that they should have appoint a committee. Douglas should have been stronger here.
1

In Re Ming 469 F 2d 1353 (7th Cir. 1971) Even federal court rules must render due process. You can’t take a person’s bar license without a hearing. 1

Keyishian v Board of Regents (1967) 17 L Ed 2d 629, 385 U.S. 589. Peddler registration near a University of California campus as I recall. Overbreadth is the issue. Ordinance required solicitors to register with the police. Ruled unconstitutional.
1

M.L.B. v. S.L.J. (1996) 519 U.S. 102. In important civil cases a state may not block a defendant's right to appeal just because that defendant is poor. The state must provide a transcript at no cost. 1

McSurely v Ratliff (1967) 282 F Supp 848 (E.D. Ky. 1967). Anti communist law. Raid. Court declared Kentucky's anti sedition law unconstitutional. Case arose from overbreadth, an unjustified raid based on an overbroad statute.
1

Primus, In Re (1978) 56 L Ed 2nd , 436 US 412, 98 S Ct 1893. Ms. Primus violated the state bar’s proscription of her right to free speech. She talked with those pesky people who were injured by a corporation. The Supreme Court backed up the first amendment here! Good. 1

Shuttlesworth v City of Birmingham Shuttlesworth v City of Birmingham http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5089.html 1 (1965) Volume 15 Lawyer's Edition 2nd page 176, 382 US 87, 86 S Ct 211 Distilled to its essence, this statute says “that a person may stand on a public sidewalk in Birmingham only at the whim of any police officer of that city.” Supreme Court found the statute overbroad and therefore unconstitutional - like 9.04.050 in Steve’s case. 2 3


Statutes, Regulations, City Ordinances cited herein:

Davenport Municipal Code section 9.04.050 in its totality: “Any person who wilfully prevents or attempts to prevent any public officer or employee from performing the officer’s or employee’s duty commits a simple misdemeanor.” 1

Iowa code section 627.6 9 b Exempts one car from levy. 1

Scholarly Treatises Cited herein:

32 scholarly treatises regarding the right to counsel. They all cite Gideon v Wainwright (1963) 9 L Ed 2nd 799, 372 US 335, 83 S Ct 792, 93 ALR 2nd 733, subject of 32 scholarly annotations and a major motion picture starring Henry Fonda. The annotations are: 65 ALR 4th 183, 47 ALR 4th 1069, 79 ALR 3rd 1025, 73 ALR 3rd 725, 71 ALR 3rd 562, 64 ALR 3rd 1291, 36 ALR 3rd 751, 36 ALR 3rd 1403, 34 ALR 3rd 470, 34 Alr3rd 1256, 33 ALR 3rd 229, 18 ALR 3rd 1074, 10 ALR 3rd 1371, 5 ALR 3rd 1269, 5 ALR 3rd 1360, 93 ALR 2nd 747, 36 ALR Fed 594, 26 ALR Fed 218, 102 L Ed 1049, 101 L Ed 2nd 1017, 98 L Ed 2nd 1074, 83 L Ed 2nd 1112, 65 L ed 2nd 1219, 33 L Ed end 865, 33 L Ed 2nd 932, 31 L Ed 2nd 921, 25 L Ed 2nd 1025, 18 L Ed 2nd 1388, 18 L Ed 2nd 1420, 14 L ed 2nd 992, 12 L Ed 2nd 1340, 9 L Ed 2nd 1260. 1

ALR 4th 367, 71 ALR 3rd 562, 53 ALR 3rd 1002, 93 ALR 2nd 747, 26 ALR Fed 218, 103 L Ed 2nd 1000, 101 L Ed 2nd 1017, 98 L Ed 2nd 1074, 98 L Ed 2nd 1115, 65 L Ed 2nd 1219, 61 L Ed 2nd 1018, 18 L Ed 2nd 1420. They all cite Argersinger v Hamlin (1972) 32 L Ed 2nd 407 US 25, 92 S Ct 2006. 1

Annotation re In Re Crow 3 L Ed 2d 1960-65 1

Five scholarly treatises regarding overbreadth and/ or Erznoznik: 52 L Ed 2d 892; 45 Led 2nd 725, 43 L Ed 2nd 871, 41 L Ed 2nd 1257, 21 L Ed 2nd 976. 1

Kennedy, Caroline, and Alderman, Ellen, In Our Defense 1

Motor Vehicle treatises: 2 ALR 5th , 86 ALR 3rd 1251, 60 ALR 3rd 361, 60 ALR 3rd 427, 35 ALR 2nd 101, 3 ALR 2nd 107, and 69 L Ed 2nd 1044. 1

Overbreadth Treatise. Superb Annotation. 27 Lawyer's Edition 2nd page 953. Subject: Overbreadth 1

Palaschak, Douglas: Brief #3789: First Amendment Rights of Lawyers. State Bar Acts are unconstitutional. Explains over breadth and lists many 1st amendment cases. Found at
http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/3789.html 1 2

Constitutions, Magna Charta, and Ancient sources of law cited herein:

1st amendment guarantees the right to associate and petition for redress 1

6th amendment 1

association protected under the 1st amendment 1

Due Process is defined as including notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard. 1

Equal protection which is a concept that is both civil and criminal 1

Gospel of St. Luke, chapter 27, verse 11. Jesus remained silent upon accusation. 1



Proposed Schedule of Motions and Hearings

Halloween, Thursday October 31, 2002

            #5576 TRO to return car pending litigation and hearing.

            #5575 Continuance.

            #5573 to strike the unsworn non-affidavit of Hegland.

            #5566 Discovery Motion.

Tuesday November 12, 2002. 10:30 a.m.

            #5568 Demurrer

            #5567 Demand for re-arraignment

#5565 Suppression Motion.

Tuesday November 26, 2002. 10:30 a.m.

            #5569 Dombrowski Motion

            #5572 Gerstein Motion

            #5570 Quo Warranto Motion

            #5571 Overbreadth Motion

            #5574 to Dismiss

Tuesday December 3, 2002. 10:30 a.m. - Proposed new pretrial

            Follow up to Discovery Motion #5566 if discovery has not been received

Tuesday January 7, 2003 - Tentative Jury Trial Date ( I have already lost a car and been jailed. I think that a jury is required now that the punishment of jail and forfeiture has been imposed. Do you see the problem when you punish before you have the hearing?)


Declaration of Douglas Palaschak regarding car ownership and exemptions.

            I, Attorney Douglas Palaschak, declare the following under penalty of perjury: I have 18 years experience as a licensed lawyer specializing in bankruptcy and remedies for oppression by the government against those who lawfully resist oppression and corruption by government employees.

             On Tuesday, October 29, 2002 at 4:21 Iowa time I telephoned Driver Steve’s Mom. She confirmed that the Pontiac was indeed her car and that she received no notice of its having been sold. I had already checked with Fred’s 66. A person there said that the Pontiac was given to the city to be sold.

            Steve has been wronged here and needs our help to get his Mom’s car back.

Douglas Palaschak:_________________________

Continued Statement of the Case

            Steve Bloomer, like many men, believes that traffic police act without valid jurisdiction and trample our rights. Steve Bloomer has a deeply held religious belief against self-incrimination. Our constitutional proscription against self-incrimination is rooted in the refusal of Jesus to answer Pontius Pilate as related in the gospel of St. Luke, chapter 27, verse 11.

            The ride- along officer (name unknown) was at the time of arrest prejudiced against Steve Bloomer. Steve Bloomer heard the office say something to the effect “I know Bloomer can talk. I have talked to him before.” The pretext used to attempt (unsuccessfully) to justify the stop was a seat belt violation. The officers were concerned that Steve might injure himself by not wearing a seat belt. Steve invoked his right to remain silent. One of the officers took some Ohio legal papers from the dash of Steve’s car and never did return them. Hegland and associates then attempted unsuccessfully to browbeat Bloomer into waiving his rights. Thereafter they handcuffed his hands behind his back and put him into the back of a squad car. Here is where there duplicity is exposed. After arresting him for not wearing a seatbelt they transported him without securing him with a seatbelt and (we speculate) without wearing seatbelts themselves.

            On September 23 Steve Bloomer asked the court for more time to prepare his case.

            As of this day (October 27) Steve Bloomer has not received any discovery in this case except for a unsigned statement from arresting officer Hegland. Bloomer has received no discovery nor has he received any charging document other than a traffic ticket.

            Steve Bloomer needs an adequate charging document consisting of the following elements:

1. A description of the crime of which he is accused.

2. Name, address, and telephone number of the prosecutor.

3. Affidavit upon which the complaint is based. The current non-affidavit of Hegland is unsigned and unsworn.

In addition he needs a copy of all papers in possession of police, prosecutor, and court.

This case cannot go forward until the initial steps are accomplished.

_____________________ Date

Steve Bloomer

Declaration of Attorney Douglas Palaschak regarding traffic cases.

            I, Douglas Palaschak, declare the following under penalty of perjury: I am a lawyer with 18 year of experience. I have never been licensed in Iowa. Most of my work is in the area of bankruptcy and civil liberties. I was a civil libertarian before I went to law school. A criminal defendant needs about a year to adequately defend himself. We all know that from watching the O.J. Simpson trial. I know from experience that a traffic case is in many ways more complicated that a felony case because traffic court is so accustomed to making deals and trampling on defendant’s rights. Example: Argersinger v Hamlin.

(Argersinger v Hamlin (1972) 32 L Ed 2nd 407 US 25, 92 S Ct 2006. Cannot put a guy in jail if you don’t give him a right to a jury trial. Cited in 12 scholarly motor vehicle treatises including: 48 ALR 4th 367, 71 ALR 3rd 562, 53 ALR 3rd 1002, 93 ALR 2nd 747, 26 ALR Fed 218, 103 L Ed 2nd 1000, 101 L Ed 2nd 1017, 98 L Ed 2nd 1074, 98 L Ed 2nd 1115, 65 L Ed 2nd 1219, 61 L Ed 2nd 1018, 18 L Ed 2nd 1420.)

Until circa 1972 persons facing less than 6 months in jail were presumed not entitled to appointed counsel. While in jail for lack of $250,000 bail in 1999 after being arrested by the FBI on my farm in Illinois for having written a well-written traffic petition #2871 in 1997 http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/2871.html , I learned that extradition law is undeveloped. I theorize that refinement in law comes with litigation and time. My point is this: Traffic law, like extradition law, is not very refined. There are not enough cases to produce a clear picture of the law. Therefore, when one does a traffic case, he must invent the forms himself. People like Steve Bloomer refine the traffic system and win rights for us just like Gideon

 http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/gideon.html did.

(Gideon v Wainwright (1963) 9 L Ed 2nd 799, 372 US 335, 83 S Ct 792, 93 ALR 2nd 733, subject of 32 scholarly annotations and a major motion picture starring Henry Fonda. The annotations are: 65 ALR 4th 183, 47 ALR 4th 1069, 79 ALR 3rd 1025, 73 ALR 3rd 725, 71 ALR 3rd 562, 64 ALR 3rd 1291, 36 ALR 3rd 751, 36 ALR 3rd 1403, 34 ALR 3rd 470, 34 Alr3rd 1256, 33 ALR 3rd 229, 18 ALR 3rd 1074, 10 ALR 3rd 1371, 5 ALR 3rd 1269, 5 ALR 3rd 1360, 93 ALR 2nd 747, 36 ALR Fed 594, 26 ALR Fed 218, 102 L Ed 1049, 101 L Ed 2nd 1017, 98 L Ed 2nd 1074, 83 L Ed 2nd 1112, 65 L ed 2nd 1219, 33 L Ed end 865, 33 L Ed 2nd 932, 31 L Ed 2nd 921, 25 L Ed 2nd 1025, 18 L Ed 2nd 1388, 18 L Ed 2nd 1420, 14 L ed 2nd 992, 12 L Ed 2nd 1340, 9 L Ed 2nd 1260.)

            I also know that public defenders and other appointed counsel are only effective for guilty people - because all they have time for is a cursory look at the case. They can make a deal because that takes no time.

            The innocent need more time than the guilty to prepare their case. Steve Bloomer is innocent. He needs time to prove his innocence. Like most folks, he needs about a year.

            Because people don’t litigate their traffic tickets, the law is unrefined. Furthermore, procedures in traffic court are not uniform from state to state. Also, the presiding officer is sometimes not even required to be a lawyer or high school graduate. My point in this paragraph is this: The methods to effectively litigate in traffic court are not well known. The litigant needs time to develop his theories of the case.

            More often than not, the theories include challenging a statute for overbreadth. I used overbreadth theory to win a case this year; it took a year; the case began almost a year to the day before it was dismissed.

            I have met personally with Steve Bloomer. I have talked to him at length on the telephone. I have examined his writings. We have numerous associates in common. There is a movement in America of people who have strong moralistic beliefs in freedom and the constitution. The internet is uniting these people. We share methods, experiences, cases, theories, and e-books. This is the type of association protected under the 1st amendment as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of In Re Primus

http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/primus.html (Edna Primus was an ACLU lawyer harassed by the organized bar) and a multitude of other cases cited in my brief #3789 at

 http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/3789.html .

            Steve Bloomer is a serious young man who works hard at a steady job. He spends his spare time studying law. He writes well, but like everybody who faces a court, he needs the help of his friends and associates - and he needs adequate time.

            In the past, many criminal right were won by those in prison - because those not in prison had better things to do with their lives - so the conventional wisdom went. Today word processors permit us to make the written brief that would otherwise take too much time for the non-prisoner.

            My summary is this:

#1 It is reasonable and necessary to give Steve Bloomer adequate time to gather assistance for each motion.

#2 He needs court-appointed effective assistance of counsel - but not somebody to make a deal and sell the deal to Steve.

#3 Steve is a good person trying to survive as best he can in a part of America (Iowa) that has lost some economic luster in recent years due to circumstances that are not Steve’s doing.

________________________

Douglas Palaschak

Memorandum of Law regarding Overbreadth as applied to lawyers and other humans.

Overbreadth applies to actions as well as speech. Just read Shuttlesworth (1965) Volume 15 Lawyer's Edition 2nd 176, 382 US 87, 86 S Ct 211 http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5089.html for proof of that.

From Lawyerdude's website: http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5409.html we read:

Overbreadth is the single most powerful constitutional law concept that can be used to combat oppression. Definition of Overbreadth Theory: We value free speech. Therefore if a statute has such excessive breadth that is could be read to ostensibly permit encroachment by police on otherwise lawful speech or activity, then the statute is deemed unconstitutional under overbreadth theory. It is unconstitutional ab initio; you need not wait for a court hearing. So when the cop says “tell it to the judge” you can say “blow it out your ass cop” you can know in your heart that you are right and he has a gun. Furthermore, the person challenging the statute in court (or on the street) need not even be a person within the hypothesized class of persons whose rights are jeopardized by the offending statute. Relaxed standing is what this concept is called. See Griswold v Connecticut http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/griswold.html (1965) 14 L Ed 2d 510, 381 US 479, 85 S Ct 1678. and Craig v Boren http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/craigvboren.html (1972)

            The logic for overbreadth theory is this: the statute generally is so broad that the police could use it on almost anybody - and therefore they use that as a fallback when they want to arrest somebody but they are missing a crime. A related concept is vagueness. Overbreadth renders the statute unconstitutional - but only if you raise the issue. Lawyerdude won two recent cases using overbreadth theory. You can likely use overbreadth in your case if police used an oppressive overbroad statute against you - just like the Reverend Roy Shuttlesworth did in 1965. In the case of Shuttlesworth v City of Birmingham (1965) http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5089.html Volume 15 Lawyer's Edition 2nd page 176, 382 US 87, 86 S Ct 211. Here is a link to this same case in Findlaw where the links to other cases work: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/382/87.html

Memorable quotation of the late Justice Douglas: Literally read, therefore, the second part of this ordinance says that a person may stand on a public sidewalk in Birmingham only at the whim of any police officer of that city. The constitutional vice of so broad a provision needs no demonstration. It "does not provide for government by clearly defined laws, but rather for government by the moment-to-moment opinions of a policeman on his beat." - Supreme Court in Shuttlesworth (1965) 15 L Ed 2nd 176

            Statement of the case: Petitioner and a group of companions were standing near a street intersection on a Birmingham, Alabama, sidewalk which a policeman thrice requested them to clear for pedestrian passage. After the third request, all but petitioner, who had been questioning the policeman about his order, had begun to walk away and the policeman arrested petitioner. Petitioner was tried before a court without a jury which, without any fact findings or opinion, convicted him of violating two ordinances, 1142 and 1231, of Birmingham's city code. The Alabama Court of Appeals affirmed. Because of their breadth if read literally, these ordinances present grave constitutional problems.

 The following list is taken from Lawyerdude's brief #3789 which is also available in pdf format at www.lawyerdude.8m/3789.pdf

 

Overbreadth cases pertaining to lawyers and other humans:

The state bar act, incidentally, is unconstitutional because the term “practice of law” is vague. Even if it weren’t overbroad, the statute infringes upon speech, press, petition, and association rights. Pornographers can violate pornography laws but lawyers can’t write and speak without permission?

 

Condon, Estate of (__1998) 65 Cal App 4th 1138, 76 Cal Rptr 2d 922. For years the bar would not permit unlicensed lawyers to be heard if they attempted to collect money for fees. These lawyers took the bar to task and won!

 

Baird v State Bar of Arizona (1970) 27 L Ed 2d 639, Superb Annotation @953 of 27 Lawyer's Edition 2nd. Subject: Overbreadth. Bar applicant refused to answer question in bar application regarding his past to age 16 regarding membership in organizations advocating overthrow of government. Note that Judge McMecarch or whomever in Mariposa county refused to take the loyalty oath part of the oath specifically quoted in the California constitution.

 

Bates v Arizona (1977) 53 L Ed 2d 810. Legal Clinic Advertised. Subject: Overbreadth and 1st amendment. The 6th most pertinent case here.

 

Cohen v California (1971) 30 L Ed 2d 124. "Fuck the draft" written on the back of jacket in court hallway. Overbreadth was the basis of this decision.

 

Doran v Salem Inn (1975) 45 L Ed 2d 648. Overbreadth. 3 stripper bars. Ballet Africanus. Leading case. Joe Redner, famous owner of the leading stripper bar in Tampa recognized the name of this case which I chatted with him in Jan 2000. Redner is facing enforcement of an overbroad statute to stop lap dances in his night clubs.

 

Erznoznik v City of Jacksonville Erznoznik v City of Jacksonville (1975 ) 45 L Ed 2nd125, 422 US 205. Overbreadth. Baby's butt argument regarding drive in theater. The statute was declared unconstitutional because it was so broad as to include the depiction of a baby's butt which the court felt, would not be offensive to anybody. Subject of 5 scholarly treatises: 52 L Ed 2d 892; 45 Led 2nd 725, 43 L Ed 2nd 871, 41 L Ed 2nd 1257, 21 L Ed 2nd 976.

 

Ficker v Curran 950 F Supp 123, Affirmed at 119 F3d 1150.Attorney solicitation. Overbreadth regarding bar acts regulating attorneys. Attorney solicitation law was held unconstitutional. Used in brief 3596 at page 10.

 

Houston v Hill (1987) 96 L Ed 2d 390. Pick on somebody your own size. This is the closest case in similarity to Steve Bloomer’s case here. Overbreadth. Charles Alan Wright argued this case. "Interview" with police as they were chasing a suspect. Defendant said "Why don't you pick on somebody your own size!" The statements were not fighting words or obscenity. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the guy shouting at police as they were chasing a suspect. It is okay to be provocative. Any non-speech was pre-empted by state statute. Extrapolation from Houston case: With regard to laws against attorneys speaking without license: Any non-truth is pre-empted by fraud statutes. Any truth is protected by the 1st amendment. The supreme Court said that the city "had numerous opportunities to narrow and has not done so." Similarly the state bar act suffers from overbreadth and the implied and also explicit ambiguity of defining what constitutes the practice of law.

 

Keyishian v Board of Regents (1967) 17 L Ed 2d 629, 385 U.S. 589. Peddler registration near a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA campus as I recall. Overbreadth. Ordinance required solicitors to register with the police. Ruled unconstitutional.

 

McSurely v Ratliff (1967) 282 F Supp 848 (E.D. Ky. 1967). Anti communist law. Raid. Court declared Kentucky's anti sedition law unconstitutional. Case arose from overbreadth, an unjustified raid based on an overbroad statute. Significance for Steve Bloomer: His arrest was based on an overbroad statute also and is therefore unconstitutional also. See also McSurely v McClellan (1976) 553 F2d 1277, 1282, note 9 (D.C. Cir. 1976)(en banc) discussing a safekeeping order for the personal diaries and other seized items of McSurely. The case ordering the return of the documents of McSurelys is McSurely v Ratliff (1968) 398 F2d 817 (6th Cir 1968). The endnotes of In Our Defense contain an excellent brief regarding the search and seizure issues in a politically motivated raid.

 

Hackin v Lockwood (1966) 361 F2d 499. District court held that Arizona's ABA requirement is constitutional. The court skirted the issue by holding that requiring graduation from an accredited school is constitutional - avoiding completely the issue that ABA requirements were instituted at the behest of Carnegie, a paradigm robber baron, and foisted upon the public in the age of the robber barons with the obvious effect of promoting corporate ficta and limiting the practice of law and even the teaching of law to the wealthy. We can see the folly now in retrospect with the multitude of non-ABA schools in California.

 

Hackin v Arizona (1967)19 L. Ed. 2d 347; 389 U.S. 143; 88 S. Ct. 325. Overbreadth case. There was no written majority opinion. Douglas's strong and cogent dissent shames the majority in this case. Lawyer Hackin having been denied admission to the Arizona bar nonetheless defended a guy who was denied counsel by the court because the proceeding was, hypertechnically, civil in nature, habeas corpus. Hackin stepped forward where bar volunteers failed to do so, defended the otherwise defenseless, and was prosecuted for practicing without a license. Maybe he failed to write a good brief - although he persuaded Justice Douglas.

Overbreadth applies to Actions as well as Speech. Thus seat belt laws are suspect.

Shuttlesworth v Birmingham (1965) http://www.lawyerdude.8m.com/5089.html Volume 15 Lawyer's Edition 2nd page 176, 382 US 87, 86 S Ct 211. is, of course, the paradigm overbreadth case proving that actions as well as speech trigger overbreadth protection.

 

Deprivation of any License Requires Prior Due Process; It is a property interest.

In Re Ming 469 F 2d 1353 (7th Cir. 1971) Even federal court rules must render due process. Disciplinary proceeding. The Executive Committee of the United States District Court for Northern District of Illinois issued suspension order, and appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Pell, Circuit Judge, held that if a conviction itself is to be used to show commission of underlying acts which are of such nature as to form basis for disbarment or suspension, conviction must have reached finality, or at least to the extent of exhaustion of direct appeals. In addition, the Court held that failure to afford hearing prior to issuing order of suspension based on misdemeanor conviction violated due process. Reversed. If a conviction itself is to be used to show commission of underlying acts which are of such nature as to form basis for disbarment or suspension, conviction must have reached finality, at least to the extent of exhaustion of direct appeals. U.S. Dist. Ct. Rules, N.D. Ill., General Rule 8. District courts are free to adopt their own local rules defining grounds for disbarment and suspension and the procedures to be followed; however, such rules must meet the essential requirements of due process. License to practice law constitutes a type of "new property" the divestment of which cannot be affected without affording substantial due process, including the opportunity to be heard and to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses. Failure to afford hearing prior to issuing order of suspension based on misdemeanor conviction violated due process. [Comment by Palaschak: What a joke! The Court completely ignores the fact that the practice of law being primarily speech and writing is perhaps protected by the first amendment!]

 

Bell v Burson (1971) 26 L Ed 90, 401 US 535 State cannot take a driver license without hearing. Used in motion 3596 at page 3.

 

In Re Crow (1959) 3 L Ed 2d 1025-27. Annotation 3 L Ed 2d. This was the old law! Essentially overruled by Ming. Non criminal disbarment. Attorney disbarred in Ohio. U.S. Supreme Court issues OSC. He responded. Douglas dissents that they should have appoint a committee. Douglas should have been stronger here.

Annotation re In Re Crow 3 L Ed 2d 1960-65

            Griffin v Illinois http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/griffin.html (1965) 100 L Ed 891, 351 US 12, 76 S Ct 585, 55 ALR 2nd 1055 holds that everybody is entitled to Due Process at every stage of the proceeding. Due Process is defined as including notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard. This, in turn, means adequate time to prepare. The 6th and 1st amendments guarantee effective assistance of counsel and the right to associate and petition for redress.

            The history of the law in this country has been the increasing awareness and application of the dignity and worth of the individual human. These values are reflected in our decisions of the Supreme Court.

            Apparently Davenport police and city officials and their conspirators, Fred’s 66, are unaware of the decisions of the Supreme Court over 30 years ago that require a hearing before you take away somebody’s car. See Bell v Burson and its progeny and ancestors.

            My demand for effective assistance of counsel is based on Gideon

 http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/gideon.html and Argersinger and their progeny and ancestors.

Criminal v Civil is an artificial distinction and an instrument of oppression

            My demand for transcript is based on Griffin v Illinois

  http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/griffin.html (Griffin v Illinois (1965) 100 L Ed 891, 351 US 12, 76 S Ct 585, 55 ALR 2nd 1055 holds that everybody is entitled to a transcript on appeal)

and its direct and Griffin’s foreseeable progeny, MLB v SLJ http://www.circuitlawyer.8m.com/mlb.html .

(M.L.B. v. S.L.J. (1996) 519 U.S. 102 The state of Mississippi conditioned a mother's right to appeal the termination of her parental rights on the prepayment of all appellate costs. The Supreme Court held that termination of parental rights proceedings should be treated like criminal cases for the purposes of the right to appeal. In criminal cases, a state may not block a defendant's right to appeal just because that defendant is poor.).

            Both cases are founded on equal protection which is a concept that is both civil and criminal - and in fact, the criminal distinction is an artificial distinction and an instrument of oppression designed to keep the accused from promptly cross complaining, from demanding a summons, and from demurring. Just compare the litigation of an insurance defense lawyer to that of a criminal defense lawyer.

______________________

Steve Bloomer

 

Proof of Service

            I, Douglas Palaschak, declare the following under penalty of perjury: On Wed Oct 30, 2002 at 4:30 a.m. Iowa time I faxed this motion #5571(version 1 as I recall) to the prosecutor’s office at 563 328 6767.

____________________________

Douglas Palaschak